British Medical Journal adopts campaigning stance on euthanasia

The British Medical Journal this week contains three articles aimed at neutralising medical opposition to euthanasia.

The BMJ, which remains editorially independent from the British Medical Association, but is sent to all members, has a long track record of backing liberal causes, amongst them the legalisation of assisted suicide and euthanasia.

A comment piece from Ray Tallis, chairman of the pressure group 'Healthcare Professionals for Assisted Dying' (HPAD) calls for the BMA and Royal Medical Colleges to take a position of 'studied neutrality' on euthanasia.

An emotive 'personal view' by Tess McPherson, relates the story of the death of her mother Ann, an Oxfordshire GP who died from cancer of the pancreas last year and was the founder of HPAD.

Godlee acknowledges in her editorial that 65% of doctors are opposed to a change in the law but makes much of a 'poll of 1,000 GPs' commissioned by the pressure group Dignity in Dying last year which allegedly showed that '62% supported neutrality'.

Healthcare Professionals for Assisted Dying backed by Dignity in Dying, the former Voluntary Euthanasia Society, have flooded this year's BMA annual meeting with motions calling for doctors to take a neutral stance on assisted suicide and euthanasia.

It has been carefully engineeredto coincide with two high profile cases being heard in the high court next week, plans for a new private members bill and a mass lobby of parliament by the pro-euthanasia lobby on 4 July.

The majority of doctors and the major medical royal colleges (RCGP, RCP and Association for Palliative Medicine) however remain strongly opposed to a change in the law and British parliaments have three times in last six years, twice in the House of Lords and once in Scotland, voted against the legalisation of assisted suicide.

The BBC this morning reports a BMA spokesperson saying that the organisation is 'firmly opposed' to the legalisation of assisted dying adding: 'If assisted dying was legalised, effective safeguards could not be implemented without the involvement of doctors. It is therefore appropriate for doctors to voice their views on this issue.'

A powerful article in last week's BMJ by Iona Heath, president of the Royal College of General Practitioners, argued strongly against a change in the law and is well worth studying.

Heath eloquently voiced her 'deep concern that it will be impossible to draft a law robust enough to protect the vulnerable' and expressed her discomfort 'that medicine seems once again to be preparing to offer a technical solution to an existential problem'.

'One of the huge challenges of human life', she argues, 'is to find ways of living a meaningful life within the limits of a finite lifespan that will always involve loss of love and the inevitability of grief. Doctors have a regrettable tendency to ignore this reality and to persist in active and invasive treatment beyond the point at which it has become futile and even cruel.'

She acknowledged that some of the drive to legalise assisted suicide and euthanasia is driven by fears about inappropriate invasive treatment but insisted that the right answer is not changing the law, but rather better care that recognises the limits of medicine.

She concludes:

'When doctors fail to recognise and acknowledge existential suffering in the dying and take refuge in excessive technological interventions, patients become frightened and, no longer able to trust their doctors, may request assisted dying. But two technological wrongs do not make an existential right. I don't want assisted dying, but I also don't want a PEG tube.'

Any change in the law on assisted suicide and euthanasia would place pressure on vulnerable sick, elderly and disabled people to end their lives for fear of being a financial or emotional burden on loved ones.

This is the very last thing we need at a time when many families and the health service itself are already under considerable financial pressure.

Doctors should see this latest move for what it is and firmly reject it.

more Medical Opinion

more Media

comments

Malcolm Grice (moderator): Sat, 16 Jun 2012 21:20

Assisted dying must be opposed,the medical profession are under oath to preserve human life,this cannot be compromised.It would rob people of the dignity of life,putting undue pressure on the vunerable.Palliative care,dignity of life,better care that recognisesthe limits of medicine.The sinister aspect of killing for financial gain needs to be considered,doctors have to be trusted to keep up their high standards and should not be intimidated or pressurised into compromise for unethical reasons or emotional blackmail.

Mr Guy Rowland (moderator): Sat, 16 Jun 2012 20:34

I very much agree with the views of Iona Heath.

Geoffrey M. Fogwill (moderator): Sat, 16 Jun 2012 09:28

I strongly endorse your article's conclusion "Doctors should see this latest move for what it is and firmly rejetc it,

Anonymous (moderator): Fri, 15 Jun 2012 21:15

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. As a GP wSI in Palliative Medicine I am very much opposed to Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia. It is frightening that some doctors are so in favour of this. Whatever happened to Non-maleficence? Once again, the power of the Media is harnessed to affect the emotions of the country. What a pity! Facts of life and death with TRUE dignity become distorted in a sea of tears for assisted dying for those who are apparently unable to access good palliative care or who for whatever reason do not wish to do so. I shall certainly make my views known.